Strategic Planning Committee - 21 May 2026

The meeting began with the election of the council’s officers. Councillor Ball moved, and Councillor Martin seconded, that Councillor Batters be elected Chairman; a show of hands confirmed the motion and Councillor Batters assumed the chair. A second motion, also moved by Councillor Long and seconded by Councillor Martin, elected Councillor Ball as Vice‑Chairman, which was likewise approved by a show of hands. The assembly then approved, without amendment, the minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 23 April 2026 and authorised the Chairman to sign them.

The principal item of business was the planning application for a large‑scale solar development on the Gaverigan Bridge site. The Principal Development Officer presented the proposal, including plans and photographs, and highlighted that the site is a non‑designated heritage asset that has undergone substantial intervention. She noted that Historic Environment and Planning had not objected and explained the implications under the National Planning Policy Framework (Policy 24). The officer recommended that delegated authority be given to the Service Director (Development and Housing) to approve the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of specific conditions relating to water‑supply safeguards and other mitigations set out in the report and its addendum.

A number of external speakers addressed the committee. Representatives from Ladock Parish Council, St Stephen in Brannel Parish Council, and individuals identified as Ms R Barnecut, Mr M Blake, and Mrs H Campbell all spoke against the application, raising concerns about visual impact, conflict with local development plans, loss of agricultural land, and the cumulative effect of multiple solar farms in the area. Conversely, Mr M Choudhary spoke in support of the proposal. Councillor Kist and Councillor Cole each offered detailed observations: Councillor Kist urged refusal on the grounds of landscape and visual impact, while Councillor Cole did not oppose the scheme but highlighted issues with the routing of underground cables, potential disruption to footpaths, and the need for additional conditions to protect public rights of way.

After the presentations, the committee considered the officer’s recommendation. The motion to delegate authority to the Service Director to approve the application, contingent on the Section 106 agreement and the stipulated conditions, was recorded as resolved. No further vote on the application itself was noted in the excerpt; the decision to approve (or refuse) the development will therefore depend on the Service Director’s subsequent assessment and the fulfillment of the agreed conditions. The meeting concluded with the acknowledgment of the various viewpoints and the procedural steps required before any final determination can be made.